State v. Birthmark
300 P.3d 1140, 369 Mont. 413, 2013 MT 86 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a conviction of Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA) based on causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, the State must prove the defendant acted purposely or knowingly with respect to their conduct. The State does not need to prove the defendant specifically intended for their conduct to cause the resulting apprehension in the victim, as the apprehension element is judged by an objective 'reasonable person' standard.
Facts:
- In November 2010, Michael Todd Birthmark was staying at the house shared by his mother and brother.
- Late on the night of November 16, Birthmark returned to the house angry and intoxicated after an argument at a party.
- Birthmark woke his mother and began staring at her and his brother, calling them 'inbreds' and snitches.
- He grabbed a piece of lumber and threatened to 'bash [their] heads in,' slice their necks, and kill them.
- Birthmark then went to the kitchen, stating he was going to find a knife.
- While Birthmark was in the kitchen, his mother, who was 'scared to death,' left the house and called 911.
- Birthmark later claimed his anger and threats were directed toward people at the party, not at his mother and brother.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Montana charged Michael Todd Birthmark in District Court with Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA), a felony.
- At trial, Birthmark's attorney did not object to the jury instructions on the required mental state for the offense.
- A jury found Birthmark guilty of PFMA.
- The District Court sentenced Birthmark to four years with the Department of Corrections, with one year suspended.
- Birthmark, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Montana Supreme Court, arguing that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the jury instructions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction for Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA), for causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, require the State to prove only that the defendant acted purposely or knowingly with respect to their conduct, rather than proving the defendant intended to cause the resulting apprehension?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice McGrath
Yes. A conviction for PFMA for causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury requires the State to prove only that the defendant's conduct was purposeful or knowing. The court's reasoning is that the statute separates the defendant's mental state from the victim's reaction. The mental state of 'purposely or knowingly' applies only to the defendant's conduct—the actions that cause the apprehension. The element of 'reasonable apprehension of bodily injury' is not judged by the defendant’s subjective intent, but by an objective standard: whether a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances would have felt such apprehension. Citing precedents like State v. Martin, the court affirmed that the defendant's mental state as to the result is irrelevant; the focus is on the intentional nature of the act itself and the objective perception of the victim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mens rea (mental state) requirement for assault offenses defined by the victim's reaction, firmly establishing a conduct-based standard rather than a result-based one. By bifurcating the analysis into the defendant's intentional conduct and the victim's objective apprehension, the court makes it easier for the prosecution to secure convictions in domestic violence cases. Defendants can no longer effectively argue that they did not subjectively intend to cause fear, as the legal standard focuses only on whether their actions were deliberate and would have scared a reasonable person, thereby strengthening protections for victims of such threats.
